SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6801 OF 2021

BETWEEN

MR SARAVANAN

S/O GOPINATHAN

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

NO. 14/B, 19TH STREET

ANNAI THERASA NAGAR-II

PUZHUTHIVAKKAM

ULLAGARAM

CHENNAI - 600091

TAMIL NADU

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI : ABHISHEK M R , ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY K R PURAM P S

BENGALURU CITY

REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

BENGALURU 560036

2 . SMT. PRAVEENA VENU

S/O SARAVANAN

AGED 37 YEARS

R/AT 602, 7TH CROSS

DIWAKAR CASTLE GRACE VILLA

2ND BLOCK

2

AKSHYANAGAR

TC PALYA MAIN ROD,

KOWDEHANAVALLI

R M NAGAR K R PURAM

BENGALURU - 560016

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55246/2018

PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED X ACMM, BANGALORE IN

RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARRAYED

ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.55246/2018 pending on the file of X

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’).

3

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State.

3.

Learned

counsel

for

respondent

No.2-

complainant remained absent.

4.

The factual matrix of the case is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2, the Police registered a case

on 17.04.2017 where she has alleged that her marriage

was solemnized with this petitioner on 06.02.2009 at

Chennai and there was demand of dowry from the family

members of the petitioner. The same was fulfilled by her

Parents by paying Rs.50,000/- cash, gold ornaments i.e.,

chain and ring etc. Subsequently, respondent No.2 said to

be secured job at Bengaluru, she came to Bengaluru and

joined to the duty where the petitioner also came back to

Bengaluru along with her and stayed at Bengaluru.

Subsequently, the petitioner also secured job in CSI

company with the salary of Rs.35,000/. Thereafter, the

petitioner and his family members started torturing the

4

complainant stating that now the petitioner said to be

secured a job and earning Rs.35,000/-, therefore, they

demanded

more

dowry

and

also

a

motorcycle.

Subsequently, the father of the complainant said to be

given an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner to

purchase the motorcycle. Thereafter, again the accused

started

harassing

her

physically

and

mentally

by

demanding

additional

dowry

and

subsequently,

on

10.02.2016, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the mother and

sister of accused No.1 came to Bengaluru and again

harassed the complainant to bring additional dowry of

Rs.3.00 lakh. Subsequently on 03.03.2017, the petitioner

said to be quarreled with the complainant, went to Chennai

and stayed there. Thereafter, the complaint came to be

filed. After registering the case, the petitioner along with

his mother and sister approached this Court for quashing

the FIR which came to be withdrawn in view of filing the

charge-sheet. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother and

sister who are said to be accused Nos.2 and 3 approached

this Court in Crl.P.No.1557/2021 and the same was

5

allowed. The charge-sheet against accused Nos.2 and 3

was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

02.06.2021. Now the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this

Court.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been

falsely implicated. In fact, respondent No.2 secured job at

Bengaluru and she insisted the petitioner to stay at

Bengaluru. But as the petitioner wanted to look after his

mother, he went back to Chennai and he has issued a legal

notice to respondent No.2 to come and join him. But she

has replied to the notice that she is reluctant to come and

join the petitioner. After the reply notice, this complaint

came to be filed. Even there is a contradiction in the

statement of the complainant and the reply notice in

respect of 03.03.2017 incident. A false case has been

registered in order to harass the petitioner. Allowing the

criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of

law. Therefore, prayed for quashing the same.

6

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that

this petitioner has continuously harassed the complainant.

She has categorically stated in the complaint about the

harassment, demand of additional dowry, obtaining the

motorcycle etc., and the petitioner has also assaulted the

complainant on 03.03.2017. Though the Co-ordinate

Bench has quashed the criminal proceedings against

accused Nos.2 and 3 in the different footing as they were

mother and sister of accused No.1 and they used to come

to Be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top